Am I the only one wondering why an independent Scotland would need a monarch of any sort? I get if they stay a Commonwealth realm they'd keep Lizzy Deuce and the wacky Windsors as their royals like Canada or Australia do, but if they're even suggesting going far enough to not answer to that throne, why any?

Basically, the Kings of England have farked with Scotland for a thousand years. Henry the II tried to wipe out the entire boarder- you've seen Braveheart. Besides the made up romance, it's pretty accurate. Henry the...(fourth? I think?) captured the children and wives of the Scottish barons and murdered and raped them- in that order. Others, he hung from cages outside for YEARS.

Henry the 7th married his daughter off to the Stuart king, and then invaded. Henry's Granddaughter Elizabeth executed their Queen (Mary Stuart), and then named Mary's son her heir. So the Scottish Stuarts were now Kings of England.

But a few generations later, the Stuart King decided to be a Catholic, so they kicked him out, and invited his daughter and son in law (William and Mary) to come be King and Queen instead, and when they died, they Hanovers- the current ruling family took over.

A few generations after that, the grandson of that Stuart King tried to invade through Scotland. The British didn't just beat the Scots- they wiped out survivors, women, children, animals and fields. They burned crops, they destroyed buildings.

Google "Culloden". The Scottish aren't happy with the Hanovers (Windsors). There's a reason that when Elizabeth dies, her son will take a name other than "King Charles".

Basically, the Kings of England have farked with Scotland for a thousand years. Henry the II tried to wipe out the entire boarder- you've seen Braveheart. Besides the made up romance, it's pretty accurate. Henry the...(fourth? I think?) captured the children and wives of the Scottish barons and murdered and raped them- in that order. Others, he hung from cages outside for YEARS.

Henry the 7th married his daughter off to the Stuart king, and then invaded. Henry's Granddaughter Elizabeth executed their Queen (Mary Stuart), and then named Mary's son her heir. So the Scottish Stuarts were now Kings of England.

But a few generations later, the Stuart King decided to be a Catholic, so they kicked him out, and invited his daughter and son in law (William and Mary) to come be King and Queen instead, and when they died, they Hanovers- the current ruling family took over.

A few generations after that, the grandson of that Stuart King tried to invade through Scotland. The British didn't just beat the Scots- they wiped out survivors, women, children, animals and fields. They burned crops, they destroyed buildings.

Google "Culloden". The Scottish aren't happy with the Hanovers (Windsors). There's a reason that when Elizabeth dies, her son will take a name other than "King Charles".

The Batte of Culloden was more of a French thing than a Scottish thing, as far as I can tell - the Scots were involved as part of the Auld Alliance, not due to any love of Catholics. The Scots were more protestant than the English.

Basically, the Kings of England have farked with Scotland for a thousand years. Henry the II tried to wipe out the entire boarder- you've seen Braveheart. Besides the made up romance, it's pretty accurate. Henry the...(fourth? I think?) captured the children and wives of the Scottish barons and murdered and raped them- in that order. Others, he hung from cages outside for YEARS.

Henry the 7th married his daughter off to the Stuart king, and then invaded. Henry's Granddaughter Elizabeth executed their Queen (Mary Stuart), and then named Mary's son her heir. So the Scottish Stuarts were now Kings of England.

But a few generations later, the Stuart King decided to be a Catholic, so they kicked him out, and invited his daughter and son in law (William and Mary) to come be King and Queen instead, and when they died, they Hanovers- the current ruling family took over.

A few generations after that, the grandson of that Stuart King tried to invade through Scotland. The British didn't just beat the Scots- they wiped out survivors, women, children, animals and fields. They burned crops, they destroyed buildings.

Google "Culloden". The Scottish aren't happy with the Hanovers (Windsors). There's a reason that when Elizabeth dies, her son will take a name other than "King Charles".

I know all this, but I'm confused as to what it has to do with an alternate line. The Scots were just as anti-Catholic as the English (perhaps moreso), so its not like they wanted James II to stay as King either.

DamnYankees:I know all this, but I'm confused as to what it has to do with an alternate line. The Scots were just as anti-Catholic as the English (perhaps moreso), so its not like they wanted James II to stay as King either.

The wanted Charles Stuart- Bonny Prince Charlie- who was Jame's grandson. Not because they had any love for the Catholics, but because he promised to treat them better than the current King- George the II

what_now:DamnYankees: I know all this, but I'm confused as to what it has to do with an alternate line. The Scots were just as anti-Catholic as the English (perhaps moreso), so its not like they wanted James II to stay as King either.

The wanted Charles Stuart- Bonny Prince Charlie- who was Jame's grandson. Not because they had any love for the Catholics, but because he promised to treat them better than the current King- George the II

Yes, fair enough. But if that was the standard for rebellion then, is that not the same standard now? Would this random Spanish duchess treat them better than Elizabeth?

DamnYankees:Yes, fair enough. But if that was the standard for rebellion then, is that not the same standard now? Would this random Spanish duchess treat them better than Elizabeth?

Well, she wouldn't have anything to do with them, same as Elizabeth. I think the question is- could they squeeze more tourist dollars out of people with a brand new monarchy, and the answer is probably yes.

what_now:DamnYankees: Yes, fair enough. But if that was the standard for rebellion then, is that not the same standard now? Would this random Spanish duchess treat them better than Elizabeth?

Well, she wouldn't have anything to do with them, same as Elizabeth. I think the question is- could they squeeze more tourist dollars out of people with a brand new monarchy, and the answer is probably yes.

Aren't there economic benefits to being part of the Commonwealth? I thought there were. But yea, this is a good point. I imagine the economics of it will matter.

Basically, the Kings of England have farked with Scotland for a thousand years. Henry the II tried to wipe out the entire boarder- you've seen Braveheart. Besides the made up romance, it's pretty accurate.

No. Not even close. The only thing accurate was the Edward I (not Henry II; that was the father of Richard Lionheart and John Lackland, and husband of Eleanor of Aquitaine - *that* movie is "The Lion in Winter") was known as the Hammer of the Scots. Braveheart = good movie, horrible history.

Also, subby, the proper title would be "Queen of Scots", not Scotland.

The decision will be made by David Cameron, the UK's prime minister, who has already ruled that Scotland will have to leave the pound sterling behind. That itself is a huge incentive for Scots to vote no, because they'd have to join the Euro to receive the trade benefits of being part of the Euro Zone. And given the troubles on the continent, no one should be beating down the doors of the Euro.

GRCooper:what_now: DamnYankees: No. Why would they not keep Queen Elizabeth?

How long do you have?

Basically, the Kings of England have farked with Scotland for a thousand years. Henry the II tried to wipe out the entire boarder- you've seen Braveheart. Besides the made up romance, it's pretty accurate.

No. Not even close. The only thing accurate was the Edward I (not Henry II; that was the father of Richard Lionheart and John Lackland, and husband of Eleanor of Aquitaine - *that* movie is "The Lion in Winter") was known as the Hammer of the Scots. Braveheart = good movie, horrible history.

Also, subby, the proper title would be "Queen of Scots", not Scotland.

DamnYankees:what_now: DamnYankees: Yes, fair enough. But if that was the standard for rebellion then, is that not the same standard now? Would this random Spanish duchess treat them better than Elizabeth?

Well, she wouldn't have anything to do with them, same as Elizabeth. I think the question is- could they squeeze more tourist dollars out of people with a brand new monarchy, and the answer is probably yes.

Aren't there economic benefits to being part of the Commonwealth? I thought there were. But yea, this is a good point. I imagine the economics of it will matter.

Radio Announcer: And now the BBC is proud to present a brand new radio drama series, "The Death of Mary, Queen of Scots." Part One: The Beginning.(music)

Man's voice: Yoo arrr Mary, Queen of Scots?Woman's voice: I am!(sound of violent blows being dealt, things being smashed, awful crunching noises, bones being broken, and other bodily harm being inflicted. All of this accompanied by screaming from the woman.)

(music fades up and out)

Announcer: Stay tuned for part two of the Radio Four Production of "The Death of Mary, Queen of Scots", coming up...almost immediately.(music then sound of saw cutting, and other violent sounds as before, with the woman screaming. Suddenly it is silent.)

Man's voice: I think she's dead.Woman's voice: No I'm not!(sounds of physical harm and screaming start again. then music fades up and out)

Announcer: that was episode two of "The Death of Mary, Queen of Scots", specially adapted for radio by Gracie Fields and Joe Frazier.

Basically, the Kings of England have farked with Scotland for a thousand years. Henry the II tried to wipe out the entire boarder- you've seen Braveheart. Besides the made up romance, it's pretty accurate. Henry the...(fourth? I think?) captured the children and wives of the Scottish barons and murdered and raped them- in that order. Others, he hung from cages outside for YEARS.

Henry the 7th married his daughter off to the Stuart king, and then invaded. Henry's Granddaughter Elizabeth executed their Queen (Mary Stuart), and then named Mary's son her heir. So the Scottish Stuarts were now Kings of England.

But a few generations later, the Stuart King decided to be a Catholic, so they kicked him out, and invited his daughter and son in law (William and Mary) to come be King and Queen instead, and when they died, they Hanovers- the current ruling family took over.

A few generations after that, the grandson of that Stuart King tried to invade through Scotland. The British didn't just beat the Scots- they wiped out survivors, women, children, animals and fields. They burned crops, they destroyed buildings.

Google "Culloden". The Scottish aren't happy with the Hanovers (Windsors). There's a reason that when Elizabeth dies, her son will take a name other than "King Charles".

It's almost like your knowledge of history is based on what some guy in a pub said one time, that you vaguely recall.

Speaker2Animals:The decision will be made by David Cameron, the UK's prime minister, who has already ruled that Scotland will have to leave the pound sterling behind. That itself is a huge incentive for Scots to vote no, because they'd have to join the Euro to receive the trade benefits of being part of the Euro Zone. And given the troubles on the continent, no one should be beating down the doors of the Euro.

There's no way in hell David Cameron is deciding who the Scots choose as a monarch. Where are you getting that from?

DamnYankees:Speaker2Animals: The decision will be made by David Cameron, the UK's prime minister, who has already ruled that Scotland will have to leave the pound sterling behind. That itself is a huge incentive for Scots to vote no, because they'd have to join the Euro to receive the trade benefits of being part of the Euro Zone. And given the troubles on the continent, no one should be beating down the doors of the Euro.

There's no way in hell David Cameron is deciding who the Scots choose as a monarch. Where are you getting that from?

Cameron has already denied Scotland the pound sterling. He is entitled to deny the Scots the House of Windsor, especially since the Scots had their own separate monarch before James the VI and I unified the crowns of England and Scotland in 1603.

So, he can't decide who they choose as a monarch, other than to say it won't be a Windsor.

Or... what exactly? Some chunks of former Yugoslavia use the Euro directly as their currency without any authorization. Ecuador, El Salvador, and Panama use the US dollar (including US banknotes) without any particular approval from Washington. Dozens of other currencies are nothing but pegs to one or the other of those two.

Unless the Bank of England wanted to re-impose currency controls, I don't see how they could stop an independent Scotland from using Pounds (or Euros or Loonies or Yen) all day long, even taxing in Sterling or whatever. Scotland obviously wouldn't have any say in the management of the money.

Why oh why did I click? I knew it was going to be the Duchess of Alba.Now I'm going to have nightmares again.

Day_Old_Dutchie: That was one of my all-time favorite Fark threads. Seeing confirmation over and over again that people "read" pictures the same way they read text (left to right, top to bottom) was a hoot.

ThatGuyFromTheInternet:Am I the only one wondering why an independent Scotland would need a monarch of any sort? I get if they stay a Commonwealth realm they'd keep Lizzy Deuce and the wacky Windsors as their royals like Canada or Australia do, but if they're even suggesting going far enough to not answer to that throne, why any?

The last part of the article where they mention that they want her 2.9 billion dollars to bankroll the new government